5mo ago

But how will people know what size the pp is?

You're viewing a single thread.

298 comments

But the one on the left wouldn't pass US fuel economy standards, which are based on vehicle footprint since 2012.
That's the reason the Ranger etc were discontinued for a while, and when they returned were bigger than the old F-150s.
It's so the reason the small cargo vans (Nissan NV200, Ford Transit Connect, and Ram Promaster City) were all discontinued in the last 2 years. CAFE standards increase over time, and it's easier to just make bigger cars.
- Its also in my opinion, a complete failure of the EPA and a disconnect from what it's true goals should be. The marketing trends show that bigger vehicles (which have more leneient standards and can guzzle more fuel) have been sold more and more since these standards, all to the benefit of oil companies selling gas to fill the bigger tanks and the benefit of auto makers enjoying higher price margins on bigger vehicles. Once again the hand of capitalism and the "free market" prioritizing profits over everything.
  
  Everyone blames EPA while forgetting two things.
  The manufacturers chose to do this; no regulations prevent them from making a vehicle like the one on the left that meets the new standards. They're just evading the standards.
  Politicians of all walks allow regulatory capture, so almost all regulations are influenced by the people that should be regulated, making them useless or easy to evade.
  
  It was a misguided reaction to the last round of CAFE fuckery.
  The manufacturers started putting hatchback options as the standard kit on a bunch of models so they could classify them as lite trucks. So instead of basing standards on vehicle classification, the EPA changed it to vehicle footprint.
  What that resulted was the subcompact trucks and cargo vans being held to the same efficiency standards as small cars, which really isn't fair.
  Yeah, Ford now sells a small truck with a hybrid engine and a 4-ft bed, but it has a towing capacity of 2,000 pounds as opposed to the old Ranger's 6,000.
  Yeah, it does 40 instead of 27 mpg, but the smallest truck that can actually haul plywood or tow a trailer big enough to be useful now has 23mpg. It's a net loss in fuel economy because small vehicles are required to be designed around hauling passengers, not cargo.
  
  Its also in my opinion, a complete failure of the EPA and a disconnect from what it’s true goals should be. ... Once again the hand of capitalism and the “free market” prioritizing profits over everything.
  I see a contradiction here.
  Somebody designed a regulation without using their brain (or using to wrong ends), but apparently capitalism is to blame.
  
  Would you prefer we blame you, comrade?
  
  I've tried to immerse myself into commie stuff at some point, didn't work.
- But you can still legally buy older Kei trucks in the U.S.
  And they're affordable.
  https://boekiusa.com/inventory/new-jersey/paterson/all-vehicles/available
  Not too many dealers specialize though.
- But the one on the left wouldn’t pass US fuel economy standards, which are based on vehicle footprint since 2012.
  Bigger cars consume more fuel.
  
  Yes, but the regulation is a "amount of fuel per weight of vehicle". In absolute terms it's more.
  It's like when you're buying produce. $10 for 10 strawberries ($1.00 per berry) and $15 for 20 strawberries ($0.75 per berry). The $15 option is "only" $0.75 per berry, but it's also just more money in total.
  
  It's moronic to define fuel economy per pound of vehicle.
  
  Agreed.
  
  Unintended consequences, the plague on governments through history.
  
  When a consequence is so blatantly predictable can it be unintended?
  
  Can it truly be considered intended when Congress just signs the bills ALEC pays them to sign? I guess ALEC intends it.
  
  If the purpose is to sell more expensive trucks and SUVs then the bill has been wildly successful.

298 comments